Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Political compass

I have taken this test a few times over the years, and have always ended up in much the same position. However, I should say that I do not like the test particularly consisting, as it does, of a range of answers (from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree) to questions that are often false dichotomies.

In this way, one is often forced to agree or disagree with a situation that one might consider utterly irrelevent, with a lack of information on how these ideas might be achieved; similarly, the questions often lack a further nuance which would allow one to decide more accurately. Like most tests of this sort, it is a function of the prejudices of those setting the test.

For instance, one of the questions asks whether one would legalise marijuana, but never asks about the general panoply of drugs. After all, I know many people who would legalise marijuana who would not legalise other drugs.

However, it is better than most; all I am pointing out is that I do not ascribe to it the near-mythical status that some do. Anyway, given these caveats, here are my results.

Economic Left/Right: 6.62Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.23

There's no real surprises there, I don't think, apart from the fact that I may not be as socially libertarian as some. As I said above, I ascribe this to some slightly dodgy questions on that score.

For instance, apart from the drugs issue mentioned above, on the question of whether schools should insist on classroom attendance, I agreed. But I do not agree that the state should force people to attend school, only that schools, as businesses, should be able to set their own criteria on those who attend them. If people choose not to attend school, that is their business.

As usual with these things, I am not going to pass it onto ten others: however, should anyone wish to take up the baton, feel free.

25 comments:

I took that test and didn't think it was very good (although I ended up roughly where you are).

There is a better one somewhere where the two axes are labelled 'economic' and 'social', each having a 'libertarian' and 'authoritarian' extreme. I ended pretty much towards the libertarian end of either axis.

You are right about the schools question. Some of these tests also have questions like "do you think that some people are natural leaders and others followers," to which yes might be a reasonable answer. However, statism does not follow from that as the test writers seem to assume.

Took the test and came out roughly where I'd expected - Libertarian Left (-3, -7.9). The most striking thing to me is their estimation of where the big world leaders stand; only Mandela and the Dalai Llama on the side of Libertarianism! And that's abit far-fetched as his Holiness has more to answer for than most people would suspect. Interesting stuff.

Like most tests of this sort, it is a function of the prejudices of those setting the test.

Well, quite. There is, for instance, a question about immigrants: "First-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated within their new country."

Now what the hell am I supposed to do with a question like that? I can only assume that those who disagree will be counted as social libertarians, while those who agree will be considered social authoritarians.

The problem is, I am an immigrant. I moved to Britain a decade and a half ago, and while I may be comfortable enough in my adopted culture I know damn well that I will never, ever share the cultural heritage, with all the assumptions and baggage and shared viewpoints and so on, of my fellow citizens.

"A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.""

Well yes: it IS a significant advantage. The question is - or ought to be - to WHO, and is such an advantage desirable?

"Charity is better than social security as a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged."

That's not the point either. It's not the effect on the genuinely disadvantaged that is the issue.

And the overall chart is COMPLETELY screwed. Communism is not just left - it is Authoritarian Left. The axes suggest that Communism is about as socially free as neo-liberalism which is dog doo of the pungent type.

And for the recordEconomic Left/Right: 6.88Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.64

I am not going to take the test after reading the first question, because it's clearly bollocks. eg:

'If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.' which naturally assumes the two options are not related at all. When, really, they are.

On the politicasurvey2005 compass, I best match UKIP voters for crime punishment, but bizarrely BNP for economics. The BNP are a close second to UKIP for the first category too.

I think this shows the massive flaw in this particular survey as there is no way on this earth I would vote for that bunch of red racists. Unless of course, it's the voters who don't take the time to actually look at what parties actually stand for, and just decide from media soundbites.

I think we just have to treat them as a bit of fun, as most issues are far too complex to be decided by a few simple questions.

I always like to look at this particular model, and read the article that describes it when thinking about a political position.Unfortunately there is no test asssociated with it and you have to choose your own so 'self Identification' is allowed :)

'If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.' which naturally assumes the two options are not related at all. When, really, they are.

Actually Trixy, it is you who is making the assumption, based on the erroneous assertion that the rational self-interest of corporations will also fulfil the interests of humanity - there is your bollox!